basic learning question

by the way, this is a great debate and we've had some great comments so far. thanks everyone for your opinions. they are greatly appreciated.

Fiveofswords: that's what I mean, though, relativity plays a major role in these positions.  Even if a pawn chain might be weak, creating one can often be a very good move, even the best move, in a given position because it can exploit other weaknesses (potential bad bishop vs. a knight, create a spacial cramp, force a weaker, more advanced pawn chain, etc.)  This is kind of my entire problem with focusing on structural dogmatism: if you get yourself so worked up about the evils of pawn chains, or isolated pawns, or doubled pawns, you can miss moments where they are entirely justified, and there are many positions, and even entire opening systems, built around justifying the creation of a pawn chain, just as there are openings that try to justify the use of a backward pawn (Svershnikov for example), isolated pawn (QGA) or doubled pawns (Nimzoindian).  There are always tradeoffs, and in one position, what could be a structural defect can be, in another, the key to a crushing position.

paul211: about castling early and king safety, I reckon, based on his games, that Steinitz would disagree.

In all seriousness, though, it's very useful advice which anyone who doesn't already know it should take to heart moving forward.